The fiscal year 1974 request for $88.5 million does not include the cost of the Federal pay raise approved by the President last December. The cost of this raise for fiscal year 1974 comes to $1,075,000, and a request for a budget increase of this amount has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. If approved, this will increase our fiscal year 1974 total request to $89,575,000. A prototype low-frequency radio warning transmitter is being installed at Edgewood, Md., and receivers are being distributed to selected Federal, State, and local government agencies. Tests will be undertaken in the near future. This is the first phase of the proposed deployment of an improved warning system known as the decision information distribution system (DIDS). This system is protected against the effects of nuclear weapons, including electromagnetic pulse (EMP). It has the potential of being used for warning of severe weather and floods, as well as nuclear attack. Funds are not being requested for additional transmitters and receivers pending an analysis of the prototype test result. With respect to our civil defense public shelter stocking program, we are and will continue to conduct tests and evaluations on the stock components. Reports of tests and inspections to date show some deterioration, but indicate that most of the supplies are in satisfactory condition and are expected to remain serviceable for several additional years. We are utilizing the services of the Army Natick Laboratories, the DSA Defense Personnel Support Center, the Army and Air Force Veterinary Corps, and technical advice of the National Academy of Sciences to keep current on the condition of the stocks. As information is received, appropriate guidance on the physical condition is being disseminated to State and local governments for their appropriate action.

In summary, with the funds requested, we will be able to make gradual and sound progress toward the goal of each community prepared for the most likely hazards. I urge your support of the total $88.5 million budget.

SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROGRAM EMPHASIS

MS. SHELDON. As Governor Davis reported to you last year, we are putting greater emphasis on emergency planning and improvement in crisis management capability of State and local governments to cope with all hazards, both peacetime and wartime. I am pleased to report that progress is coming along very well in this effort.

Also during the past year, after considerable study, the President's decision on the future civil defense program was given to us. We were told that we should maintain our current overall effort of civil defense activities, and it directed increased emphasis within our existing authority-dual use plans, procedures, and preparedness.

To accomplish this, we have put a great deal of emphasis on an onsite assistance program which, in simple terms, means helping local government to help itself in preparing for disasters.

We have teams of State and Federal personnel going into local jurisdictions at the request of the local government to help them determine what their strengths and weaknesses are. After this determination is made, they then jointly agree on a course of action. This takes in, not only preparedness measures, but activities such as training and education, financial assistance, excess and surplus property-whatever it takes to meet local preparedness needs. To date, over 450 localities have taken advantage of this program, and we have 292 completed

surveys.

At the time of these local interviews, we find out a great deal about the professionalism of the local director, and I am sure you can understand it is in varying degrees. Where we find that a local director does not have a great deal of professionalism we do encourage the States to hold State seminars with the aid of our regional staffs. We have had to date over 100 of these seminars in 43 States, and we have a great many more scheduled for the coming year.

Along with increasing professionalism we also hold emergency operations simulation exercises for local officials as well as local government employees. We are putting our emphasis on people rather than hardware. Most local governments have large quantities of resources and manpower, but many times have not really learned how to use

them.

In the past our shelter program has been directed solely toward protection from the radioactive fallout of nuclear weapons. We now rank structures according to protection against blast effects as well as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and so on. We have a prototype of this expanded operation going on at the present time in Colorado Springs. Hopefully this will lead to a much cheaper and more cost-effective shelter survey program.

Consideration is also being given right now for contingency planning for evacuation or dispersal of persons in high risk areas, in case of natural disaster as well as enemy attack. This is a new emphasis in our program beginning this year.

SUMMARY OF BUDGET REQUEST

Our budget request is for $88.5 million for fiscal year 1974. It is $5 million more than the fiscal year 1973. Nearly all of this increase is in five program areas, and with your permission, gentleman, if you would turn to the first tab on warning and detection, I will start with that program area and highlight the increases.

Of the $4.4 million requested, approximately $3 million will go toward State contracts for the maintenance and calibration of radiological instruments.

You will notice that $400,000 has been included for our warning system, to provide for additional technical work on home receivers and for developmental work on the decision information distribution system.

Our emergency operations program starts on page 15. There is a $1.5 million increase, of which $500,000 is for our civil defense education program, $500,000 for the civil defense university extension program, and the remaining increase is for related training materials.

You will find another increase on page 51, the financial assistance to States program. We are requesting a $2.2 million increase for matching personnel and administrative expenses of State and local government. This will provide for 88 new political subdivisions coming into the program. The increase will also provide for cost-of-living increases for State and local personnel. If you wish to see the statistics on this, you will find them on page 53 where they are delineated.

On page 56 we outline our requirements for our management program. You will notice that we are reducing our personnel strength from 721 to 699 by the end of this fiscal year. Fifteen of the spaces are being taken from the headquarters staff and seven from the regions and other field activities.

We do have an additional approximately $200,000 requirement that we will now pick up for telephone service formerly financed by Army. I might add at this point that our increase for the last pay raise was not included in this budget. We did, during fiscal year 1973, absorb the $500,000 attributable to this pay raise, but our costs for fiscal year

1974 will be $1.075 million, and we have a supplemental request pending at OMB at the present time on which we have not heard anything. Our shelters program is on page 63 and we are asking for $11.4 million as compared to $11.7 million for fiscal year 1973.

We are requesting an additional $2 million for our emergency operating centers program as shown on page 76. These are for State and local EOC's and supporting systems equipment. Both of these activities are a part of the matching fund program. The final program element is research and development, which is on page 81, and you will notice that we have gone down $500,000. For the last 2 or 3 years we have had $3,500,000 in research. This year we took a pretty hard look at our research program and found that there were some areas that we had had sufficient research and didn't need as much as we had in the past, particularly in our fire research. We have spent, since the program began, approximately $8.5 million on fire research and we thought that was an area we could cut. We also have a great deal of information on shelters and operations in shelters and psychological reactions. That area has also been cut. We have gone from a research program in 1962 of $19 million to $3 million for 1974.

That gives you just a rough idea as to where our expenditures are and what we are requesting for 1974.

PROGRAM AUTHORITY

Mr. STEED. In the beginning the ability of State units to participate in, not only the strategic planning, but in dealing with actual disasters proved to be highly desirable. We had a discussion on this subcommittee when we first assumed this item for our bill, that the Federal authority should also be broadened likewise, and I know that you had legislation last year that extended the life of the program. What is the current situation now as to your authorities? Is the life of the agency limited or are you on a permanent basis?

MS. SHELDON. As far as the program itself is concerned, the defense civil preparedness program, we go back for continuance of authorizing legislation every 4 years. With respect to our State and local operations in connection with natural disasters we have an arrangement with the Office of Emergency Preparedness which gives us authority to work with local governments and to help the local government prepare for all eventualities.

ABOLITION OF OEP

Mr. STEED. The abolishment of the OEP, will that have any impact on your work, or do you have to renew the same working arrangement with those agencies which have inherited OEP's functions?

MS. SHELDON. It is my understanding that it will be necessary to renew this agreement, and when Secretary Richardson appeared before the House Armed Services Committee in closed session, he did say that he expected the same arrangement would continue, and that it was his desire and that of the administration to continue this arrangement. It is just a matter of, I imagine, the implementing orders being written. Mr. STEED. In the statement from Secretary Richardson he refers to a budget item of $88.5 million. The item we have under consideration now is $64,100,000. The difference is in the other item under your justification for the shelter surveys.

MS. SHELDON. Yes, research, shelter survey and marking.

Mr. STEED. I thought we ought to clarify this because his figure adds up to the total of the next two items.

MS. SHELDON. That is right.

Mr. STEED. The change in dealing with disasters that is involved in the OEP abolishment and transfers is supposed to consolidate the action groups under one management. Have you studied all the implications of this reorganization; is it going to make any impact on your functions? Do you see changes, problems or improvements stemming from it?

MS. SHELDON. Well, hopefully we will be able to have a closer relationship than we have had in the past. I think we have started on a path that is working very well. We do not get into the rehabilitation and relief aspects at all. We are concerned with the preparedness aspect only.

I might mention that in this past series of disasters that we have been having for the last several weeks, we have had approximately 35 of our staff on loan to OEP to work in the field in their one stop disaster centers. Right now we are negotiating with OEP and working with them on a joint arrangement of an information center during disasters, so that information will get out through one channel, and not have several areas trying to disseminate information. We do have people at the local level, and they are right there ready and willing to work. I think that we are at the point now, in our relationship with OEP, where they are using our resources and also our planning as well.

Mr. STEED. You can provide for the record a brief summary of the existing authorities and the mission that you now have, and any limita

tions on them.

[The information follows:]

The mission and functions of the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency are set out in Department of Defense Directive 5105.43.

The major part of the mission derives from Executive Order 10952 of July 20, 1962. Executive Order 10952 assigned to the Secretary of Defense most of the civil defense functions vested in the President and contained in the Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, to be used by the Secretary to develop and execute a civil defense program. The functions are:

1. A shelter program including evacuation and movement to shelter. 2. A chemical, biological and radiological warfare defense program.

3. Steps necessary to warn or alert Federal military and civilian authorities, State officals and the civilian population of enemy attack upon the United States. 4. Civil defense communications, including an appropriate warning, network, communications between authorities, and communications procedures for reportng on radiological monitoring and instructions to shelters.

5. Emergency assistance to State and local governments in a postattack period. 6. Protection and emergency operational capability of State and local government agencies in keeping with plans for the continuity of government.

7. Programs for making financial contributions for civil defense purposes to the States.

8. Plans and the operation of systems to undertake a nationwide postattack assessment of the nature and extent of the damage resulting from enemy attack and the surviving resources, including systems to monitor and report specific hazards resulting from the detonation or use of special weapons.

In addition to the Federal Civil Defense Act authorities, authority was assigned for donation of Federal surplus property under section 203 (j) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.

In addition to the civil defense functions described above, the directive assigned the Director the function to utilize and make available the cvil defense communications systems for the purpose of disaster warning under the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, which had been delegated by the President to the Secretary under Executive Order 11575.

Also, the directive stated that the Director was to provide natural disaster preparedness, planning assistance to State and local governments in accordance with agreements between the Director of DCPA—acting on behalf of the Secretary of Defense and the Director of OEP. These agreements were based upon authority contained in the Disaster Relief Act of 1970 and delegated by the President to OEP. The agreements provided that DCPA would foster local government organizations and plans for coping with major disasters and provide advice and guidance to local governments on organization and preparedness to meet the effects of major disasters.

Generally speaking, these authorities provide an adequate basis for DCPA to conduct the “civil defense" program, but there are some limitations.

The Federal Civil Defense Act, which is the statutory base for most DCPA activities, authorizes activities and measures for "civil defense" purposes which is defined to include those designed to prepare for, and cope with, the effects of "attack" by an external enemy. Most of our activities are designed to aid State and local governments to conduct these civil defense operations (civil defense is a joint Federal-State responsibility and the Federal role is to guide and furnish assistance). In providing assistance in the original instance, the statute does not permit DCPA to take into account the consideration that the assistance also would contribute to the capability of a government to prepare for and cope with a natural disaster. Such a dual use is a desirable quality. Once the assistance has been provided, however, and as long as the State or local government uses the assistance for its civil defense purpose, there is nothing in the act which prohibits the State or local government from also using that which was acquired in connection with a disaster. DCPA does have the authority to permit such use and, by regulation, has encouraged and authorized such use. This distinction between original justification versus subsequent use does not appear to be realistic, as it requires approval of assistance to assume that civil defense at State and local levels bears no relationship to disaster preparations, which, of course, is not the case.

PENDING DISASTER LEGISLATION CHANGES

Mr. STEED. That brings me to this question: There was a recent magazine article by Governor Davis about proposed studies and changes in the field of disaster relief and the functions of civil defense in that area. As I understood his remarks, there is a feeling that there ought to be more effort made to put more of the responsibility for these natural disasters on the local and State authorities than has been true heretofore. The development of the Federal Government disaster programs may have had some undesirable effects such as the feeling that people do not need to carry insurance and an inclination on the part of some municipalities not to rebuild their own facilities. They want the Federal Government to foot the whole bill. Will this require and if so, will it lead to-proposed legislation?

Ms. SHELDON. I don't believe it will lead to proposed legislation. Mr. STEED. Are the grants you make with the Federal moneys that are made available in disaster situations, a discretionary matter or is it by law?

Mr. SHELDON. This is in your 1973 Disaster Relief Act. It is coming up right now.

Mr. STEED. But you are familiar with the article that the Governor

wrote.

MS. SHELDON. It was the article written by Darrell M. Trent, the Acting Director of OEP, and it appeared in the May 1973 issue of "Nation's Cities." Under our matching funds program, we match on a 50-50 basis.

Mr. STEED. That, of course, was not the thrust of the article. The thrust of the article, as I read it, concerned the reactions of people